In
this parentage action, father voluntarily relinquished his parental rights=
in
the parties’ minor child, E.R.On appeal, father contests the Franklin Family Court’s denial=
of
his motion for relief from judgment under V.R.C.P. 60(b).We affirm.

In
1997, father was convicted in federal court for sending obscene material
through the mail.The convic=
tion
stemmed from correspondence father had with an individual who purported to=
be a
single mother of three children. =
span>In
2003, father filed the present action for parentage in Franklin Family
Court.Mother filed a cross =
claim
that sought involuntary termination of father’s parental rights.Mother argued that father present=
ed a
direct threat to E.R. as evidenced by the facts underlying father’s
federal conviction.The part=
ies
engaged in discovery, and a two-day trial was scheduled.Mother planned to call numerous w=
itnesses
at trial, including father’s probation officer, a federal investigat=
or
familiar with the federal proceeding, and father’s brother.

On
the first day of trial, the parties reached a settlement agreement.The agreement called for father to
relinquish his parental rights in E.R.&nb=
sp;
Father executed an affidavit in support of the agreement.He testified that, after careful
consideration, he decided termination of his parental rights in E.R. was i=
n the
child’s best interests.Father stated that he was not coerced or under duress when he agree=
d to
the settlement.The parties =
reduced
their agreement to writing and presented it to the court for approval.

The
court accepted the stipulation after addressing father in open court.The court inquired about father=
8217;s
state of mind and whether he understood the seriousness and finality of his
decision.Father indicated t=
hat his
decision was voluntary, that he understood its finality, and that terminat=
ing
his rights in E.R. would serve the child’s best interests.

About
one week after the judgment issued, father moved for relief pursuant to Ru=
le
60(b).See V.R.F.P. 4(a)(1)
(stating that the rules of civil procedure apply to divorce proceedings and
parentage action considered a divorce proceeding for purposes of the rule)=
.Father claimed that he mistakenly
entered the stipulation because he was so emotional on the day of trial. Father argued that he was surpris=
ed to
see his brother in court that day, and that his brother “used strong
emotions” to convince father that termination was in the child’=
;s
best interests.The court de=
nied
father’s motion, concluding that it had no merit.

Father
appeals to this Court, arguing that the family court abused its discretion=
by
denying his motion for relief from judgment.Ruling on a motion for relief from
judgment is committed to the family court’s discretion, and we will =
not
disturb the court’s ruling absent a showing of abuse.Richwagen
v. Richwagen, 153 Vt. 1, 3-4
(1989).Rule 60(b) provides =
relief
in extraordinary circumstances only.John A. Russell Corp. v. Bohlig, 170 Vt. 12, 24 (1999).It does not protect a party from
ill-advised tactical decisions, Rule v. Tobin, 168 Vt. 166, 174 (19=
98),
and it will not provide relief from any other “free, calculated, and
deliberate choices” the party has made, Estate of Emilo v.=
St.
Pierre, 146 Vt. 421, 424 (1985).

The
record does not support father’s position that the court abused its
discretion by denying his motion.Father’s relinquishment of his parental rights was a free, ca=
lculated
and deliberate choice.Father
stated in his affidavit that he gave the issue careful consideration before
deciding that relinquishment was in E.R.’s best interests.In both his sworn affidavit and i=
n open
court father testified that he understood the nature of his decision, that=
the
decision was final, and that his agreement was not coerced.Although father now asserts that =
his
brother prevailed upon him to sign the stipulation, he did not tell the fa=
mily
court about that pressure when asked him if he had been threatened or coer=
ced
to agree to the settlement.=
Father
may now regret his decision to relinquish his rights in E.R., but no legal
basis exists to set aside the judgment given the record in this case.